Gould v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Background

Steven Eric Gould filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The court had allowed one Fourth Amendment claim to proceed against Correctional Training Facility officers Vergara and A. Luna and Monterey County District Attorney Investigator sheriff T. Rodriguez. Gould alleged that the defendants took a DNA sample from his mouth without consent, probable cause, a warrant, or a court order, and that Rodriguez was present to enforce the collection.

Gould was incarcerated after pleading guilty to felony reckless evading and felony reckless evading by driving in the opposite direction of traffic. In a written plea advisement, he waived Fourth Amendment rights and agreed that the court would order a state DNA sample. He initialed those provisions but did not initial the separate provision concerning a local Orange County District Attorney DNA database. He had previously provided a DNA sample to Orange County authorities.

On March 27, 2018, Luna swabbed the inside of Gould’s left cheek. The stated purpose was to obtain a confirmatory DNA sample for a Las Vegas, Nevada case in which Gould was a suspect. Vergara and Rodriguez were present, and there was no court order specifically directing that collection. The sample was sent to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.

Gould said he told Rodriguez that he had already provided a DNA sample, asked whether another collection was mandatory, showed defendants his abstract of judgment, and did not consent. He alleged that Luna forcefully collected the sample and that Rodriguez initiated or directed the collection. Defendants said Gould consented and that the sample was collected without force. For purposes of deciding the officers’ motion, the court accepted Gould’s version of the disputed facts.

Claims and arguments

Gould argued that collecting a second sample for an outside law-enforcement agency was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, particularly because he had already provided DNA. He also raised Fifth Amendment arguments in his briefing, but the court explained that the amended complaint did not state a viable Fifth Amendment claim because compelled DNA collection involves physical rather than testimonial evidence and does not implicate the Fifth Amendment takings protection for prisoners.

Luna and Vergara argued that collecting DNA from a convicted person in custody for identification was reasonable under Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent. They also argued that qualified immunity protected them. Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from liability when the law did not clearly establish that their specific conduct was unlawful.

Rodriguez argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law prohibited an investigator from being present during an inmate’s DNA collection. He separately argued that he did not personally participate in the collection. Gould responded that Rodriguez directed Luna and Vergara to collect the sample.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that collecting DNA by cheek swab is a search under the Fourth Amendment, but that DNA collection from people under government supervision can be reasonable even without consent, probable cause, a warrant, or a court order when used for criminal identification. The cited authorities also recognized that DNA samples may be shared with outside law-enforcement agencies for that purpose.

The court identified an unresolved issue: whether an officer may collect a second DNA sample from an inmate for an out-of-state investigation when a centrally maintained sample already exists. The court declined to decide conclusively whether the collection violated the Fourth Amendment because it resolved the claim through qualified immunity.

For qualified immunity, the court considered whether the conduct violated a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time. The court held that, even accepting Gould’s allegations, no precedent placed beyond debate that collecting a second inmate DNA sample for law-enforcement purposes without consent, probable cause, a warrant, or a court order was unconstitutional. Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit decisions had upheld certain DNA collections from people under government supervision and recognized reduced privacy expectations and the government’s identification interests. The court noted that the cited Ninth Circuit cases did not address multiple collections, but also did not establish that a second collection was unlawful.

The court therefore held that Luna and Vergara were entitled to qualified immunity and granted summary judgment in their favor.

As to Rodriguez, the court found that Gould had offered only a conclusory allegation that Rodriguez was the “ringleader” who directed the collection. The undisputed evidence showed that Luna informed Gould that a swab was needed, took the swab, and mailed the sample. The court found no factual allegations about Rodriguez’s involvement beyond witnessing the collection and interviewing Gould afterward. The court held that Gould had not presented evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that Rodriguez directed the collection or was otherwise liable under § 1983.

The court further ruled that, even assuming Rodriguez directed the collection or was otherwise responsible, he would receive qualified immunity for the same reasons as Luna and Vergara. The court did not decide whether the alleged conduct actually violated the Constitution.

Disposition

The court granted Luna and Vergara’s motion for summary judgment and granted Rodriguez’s motion for summary judgment. It directed the clerk to enter judgment in favor of defendants and close the file. The order terminated Docket Nos. 26 and 39.